Skip to main content

About your Search

20130827
20130827
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
military force to respond to syria's alleged chemical weapons use, it would be an echo of what george w. bush did ten years ago when our government said it was sure, but it was wrong, and the resulting war without u.n. approval was one of america's greatest foreign policy mistakes ever, if not the greatest foreign policy mistake ever. so now here we are. the drum beat in washington today says that there is going to be an american or an american and allied military hit of some kind against sere wra. what will that do? what choices does president obama have in terms of how to respond if we does want to respond militarily or otherwise? does congress get a say in the matter? and what happens if we are wrong about this? our government's track record on being wrong about chemical weapons is long. it spans multiple administrations for multiple reasons. if the use of chemical weapons really is going to be a real redline in the world that demands a response when it happens, why is the world waiting for our government to make up our government's own mind about whether this happened? instead of wa
an issue of some level of hypocrisy in terms of the outrange that was heaped upon the george bush administration with respect to afghanistan and iraq. but there are some slight differences here. one to do with the documented facts of the u.s. of chemical weapons. number two, the general sense that this regime is unhenged and therefore needs to be contained in a way that you didn't necessarily see with the likes of some of the other players over the last few years, whether you're talking iran or whatever. so, i think that there's a different tone that you have with syria that you didn't have with the others. again, i harken back to similarities to kosovo from humanitarian perspective but it does put the democrats in a very ticklish box right now, particularly given the warriness of the american host: jim is on the line from texas. republican line. is whatmy question about this tainted election -- the obama administration. guest: in what respect? irs.r: the guest: the irs is a huge issue. i do not know how that translated in terms of a repressed election. that mightgroups have been
there's little difference between president obama and president george w. bush and they predict if assad falls, what comes after him could be even worse. wolf? >> jill dougherty with that report, thank you. >>> up next on our special report, the deadly effects of a poison gas attack. when we made our commitment to the gulf, bp had two big goals: help the gulf recover and learn from what happened so we could be a better, safer energy company. i can tell you - safety is at the heart of everything we do. we've added cutting-edge technology, like a new deepwater well cap and a state-of-the-art monitoring center, where experts watch over all drilling activity twenty-four-seven. and we're sharing what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. our commitment has never been stronger. everybody has different ideas, goals, appetite for risk. you can't say 'one size fits all'. it doesn't. that's crazy. we're all totally different. ishares core. etf building blocks for your personalized portfolio. find out why 9 out of 10 large professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. ish
happened to george w. bush. i would argue that he overreacted in some ways in terms of completely changing the strategic vision trying to remake the middle east, invading iraq and, you know, stuff like that. you could argue that perhaps the obama administration has under reacted to changes that have happened in the sense of not -- certainly not enunciating whether or not they developed it and overarching strat by for the middle east during and after the arab spring. >> tomorrow on "morning joe," new york police chief ray kelly will be here. >> great. >> also she hosted president obama at her home recently, former host of npr's all things considered, michele norris joins us. >> you did that. >> yeah. >> this weekend. >> he was there this weekend? coming this weekend. going to watch football. >> that's fun. >> he's going to love your apartment. >> little tight, mr. president. >> get together and do the interview. >> lot of toys. >> david letterman reacts to miley's vma performance. news you can't use is next. i'm tony siragusa and i'm training guys who leak a little, to guard their manhood w
bush, george h. w. and also bill clinton. these are people who have a acknowledged drug use but go on to do great things. you point out that there were not caught up in the network of police arrest that can often times to real success in america >> guest: that's right. >> host: know when you look at the use of illegal drugs, your point not for legalization personally, but for education. and you talk about the idea that people should know what is in a cycle active drug one of your arguments that i found fascinating is most people who use illegal drugs are not taxed by your definition, does not interfere with parenting, work, all relationships. i think most americans if they heard this there was a, but doctor, you are taking away all of the hype and fear that we want our children to here. might be better to say to children, don't do drugs. even if your argument is true, there are people into illegal drugs and don't suffer consequences. why isn't it better given what you said about the police and now works of crime that then attach, why when you say you know it's better to say don't d
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)